Standing Committee G

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Fire and Rescue Services Bill

Nicholas Winterton: I welcome all members of the Committee to our seventh sitting. I am aware that a knife fell at the end of the previous sitting, so we commence afresh this morning. Looking at the faces of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I am confident that good and constructive progress will again be made.Clause 25 Information

Clause 25 - Information

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in
clause 25, page 11, line 30, after 'returns', insert 'reasonably'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 101, in
clause 25, page 11, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (b).

Philip Hammond: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Sir Nicholas.
 The clause deals with the information that a fire and rescue authority might be required to supply to the Secretary of State. My instinctive concern, when we are dealing with a local service that is accountable locally, is that the Bill will create the wrong relationship between that body and the Secretary of State. Clauses 25 to 27 are grouped under the heading ''Supervision'', and this clause puts the fire and rescue service under an obligation to submit various reports and returns to the Secretary of State. 
 I do not like provisions that suggest that the relationship should be that of the schoolboy sending in his prep for marking by the headmaster. I accept that some information must be available centrally, not least so that Ministers cannot hide behind the time-honoured convention of rebuffing questions from Members by saying that information is not collected centrally. I hope that only sensible data will be collected under the clause. The explanatory notes give examples of sensible, unexceptional and acceptable information that the Secretary of State can collect, such as the numbers of fire deaths and casualties, information that it is useful to have centrally. 
 The Bill, however, gives the Secretary of State a wide power, so amendment No. 100 would require a fire and rescue authority to submit only those reports and returns that he ''reasonably'' requires. I have learned over the years that the Secretary of State always acts reasonably. That is not in any sense a comment on the behaviour or inclinations of the current incumbent of that office—

Nick Raynsford: Oh yes, it is.

Philip Hammond: I am not sure that, if the Minister casts his mind back to the some of the Secretary of State's more publicised actions, he would want to be tarred with the view that the Secretary of State always acts reasonably. However, I understand that, in the discharge of his official duties, by definition the Secretary of State always acts reasonably.
 The point of the amendment is to try to establish what reports the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to require. If the Under-Secretary can reassure the Committee that it will simply be the reports that are made on a regular basis to the ODPM, nobody will have a problem with that. 
 Following on from our debates on Tuesday, perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell the Committee whether one of the reports that he might ask for is an annual report on revenues raised through charging under different categories. Then, the next time I am facing him and want to ask him about how much revenue is raised through charging for different activities, he will have the information available instead of having to bluff his way out four or five times by talking about the percentages of fire authorities that may make charges under certain categories, rather than telling the Committee how much revenue is being raised. There is a thought for the Minister on a useful area in which reporting and returns of information could be extended. 
 Amendment No. 101 would delete paragraph (b), and it, too, is a probing amendment. On first reading the clause, the paragraph appears entirely redundant. Any information that the Secretary of State requires could be obtained through the requirement to make a report or a return to him. On reflection, however, I wondered whether the Under-Secretary has it in mind that the reports to be made under paragraph (a) will be recurring annual, monthly or quarterly reports, and that the power under paragraph (b) is intended to allow him to demand additional information that is not provided on a routine basis. Exploring that a little further, is it the Government's intention that the reports and returns under paragraph (a) will be provided by all authorities? Does the Under-Secretary see paragraph (b) as more of an enabling provision to let the Secretary of State fish for specific information from individual authorities? 
 I do not want to feed the Minister of State's inclination to see paranoia in my every question, but I must say to the Committee that the paragraph (b) could—if I am interpreting what Ministers have in mind correctly—be used to mount fishing expeditions to harass a fire and rescue authority. I would like to hear an assurance from the Under-Secretary that there is no intention to seek lots of new information on an ad hoc basis from individual authorities. It would be helpful if the Committee could understand how the two different paragraphs are intended to work and why paragraph (b) is not redundant.

Phil Hope: The clause is
 a restatement of section 230 of the Local Government Act 1972, which covers local authority reports, returns and information. The purpose of the clause is to extend that requirement to all fire and rescue authorities. Combined fire and rescue authorities, as we discussed earlier, are not covered by the 1972 Act.
 Reports and returns are required from fire and rescue authorities to enable us to evaluate fire and rescue service performance and to monitor progress against national and local targets. The importance of such information has been recognised, not least in the Select Committee's recent report on the service. The hon. Gentleman accepted that it is entirely right that we should be collecting such information. We always work closely with fire and rescue authorities when we are designing reports and returns to be completed by them. 
 We have established a new institutional framework in which the concerns of the service can be resolved. The clause follows the wording in section 230 of the 1972 Act, and to introduce the concept of ''reasonableness'', as is being suggested, would put the collection of information about fire and rescue on a different basis from the collection of other information by the Government. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is implicit that the Secretary of State must act reasonably and his requests must be reasonable. The current set of reports and returns is reasonable, and there has never been any complaint that we have asked for excessive or unreasonable information from brigades. We have no intention of making unreasonable demands for information of fire and rescue authorities.

Philip Hammond: The Under-Secretary will recognise the concept of proportionality and cost. All Members of Parliament are familiar with departmental answers stating that parliamentary questions would be disproportionately expensive to answer. I hope that he will confirm that the Government will take into account the cost of providing information. That will not arise when the authority is already collecting information, but if the Department were to ask for information that the authority was not already collecting, significant costs might be involved.

Phil Hope: Of course, that is an integral part of the system, which is embodied in the 1972 Act. It is interesting to note that although the hon. Gentleman is concerned about collecting too much information and placing too much of a burden on local authorities—at least I understand that to be the gist of his contribution—he is suggesting further areas from which we should collect information on fire and rescue authorities. We have heard his comments; I will convey his thoughts, contributions and ideas to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and in due course the hon. Gentleman will see whether they have been accepted.
 As these are probing amendments, the hon. Gentleman asked for information and clarification. Statistics and information already collected from several fire and rescue authorities to meet various central Government requirements include best value 
 performance indicators and national statistics on fires. The Committee will realise that that is important information. The clause formalises the requirement for all authorities to supply such information because in that regard they are not covered by existing legislation. We need paragraph (b) because some information that we require may not be included in the reports covered by paragraph (a). 
 The Secretary of State requires some flexibility as and when circumstances arise, so paragraph (b) would not be used to harass authorities by throwing increasingly demanding requests for information at them—that is a little touch of the paranoia that we have seen in previous sittings. The purpose is to reflect and repeat the wording in section 230 of the 1972 Act, which allows us to collect information in order to provide assurances to the community and to plan for the future. The existing wording has worked well and we see no reason to change it. With those assurances I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendments.

Philip Hammond: I am interested in what the Under-Secretary says, but his comments on my suggestion that it would be helpful to have available information about revenues collected by authorities cause us to focus on an interesting point. Time and again, we find that Ministers do not have available information on areas that MPs often find relevant to the discharge of their responsibilities. I fear that with the Bill we will see Ministers collecting information that it suits them to publish and not information that it would be embarrassing to have to present.

Nick Raynsford: No.

Philip Hammond: The Minister says no, but if he had had the figures that I asked for in our debate on charging he would have been embarrassed by them because the sums involved are far smaller than he sought to impress on us by quoting the large percentages of authorities that charge or might do so.
 The Under-Secretary has provided the reassurance that I sought. There is no easy answer to the matter. This is a much broader point, but it cannot be entirely satisfactory that bodies such as fire authorities—hospital trusts would also come into this category—should be required to provide all the information that the Secretary of State demands, but there is no mechanism that enables Parliament to obtain centrally collated information of a type that Ministers for one reason or another do not want to collect centrally. To be fair to the Under-Secretary, on the latter point I can think of more examples in health than in fire and rescue. However, I suspect that it would have been outside the scope of the Bill to provide for Parliament to collect information from fire and rescue authorities. 
 I hope that we will be able to return to that point in due course. The more that I speak about it, the more I am fascinated by the idea of a parliamentary information commissioner—

Phil Hope: More bureaucracy.

Philip Hammond: Such a post could be independently administered, and the commissioner could collect
 information that might be used to challenge some of the things that Ministers tell us.

Phil Hope: Small government.

Philip Hammond: The Under-Secretary says two things. He says ''more bureaucracy'', when he operates in a Department that is about to impose an additional tier of bureaucracy across the regions of England foolish enough to be duped by his offer; and he says ''small government'', pointing at Her Majesty's Opposition, interestingly confusing a parliamentary commissioner answerable to Parliament with part of the Government machinery. The holder of such a post would have nothing to do with the Government; indeed, the purpose of being able to collect information independently would be to hold the Government to account, which is not something that they seem keen on.
 I think that we have gone far enough in that direction. Having heard what the Under-Secretary said and been largely reassured by it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 - Inquiries

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: I have a brief question for the Under-Secretary. When I first read the Bill I was puzzled that the clause did not give a hint of the nature of the inquiries or any detail about the way in which they were to be conducted. As I read through the Bill, I discovered that the information is contained in clause 54. I am interested to know why it was felt appropriate to put the specification for the conduct of inquiries under clause 26 into clause 54, the supplementary provision on inquiries in a separate part of the Bill, so making it harder for a person trying to understand the Bill. If I have misunderstood, the Under-Secretary will correct me, but it seems that, having read clause 26, one has to go to clause 54 to find out what sort of inquiry is involved—whether it would be public, whether it would publish a report and so on.
 I know that the Under-Secretary's instinct, in explaining this tortuous architecture, will be to hide behind the parliamentary draftsmen, but surely one of the Ministers here is in charge of the Bill. It is not good enough for them to keep hiding behind officials and parliamentary draftsmen. I would hope that the Under-Secretary had asked at some stage, ''Why can't we have plain English? Why can't we say in clause 26 under what provisions and in accordance with what procedures the inquiries will be conducted?'' He would then have been able to give the Committee a proper explanation for putting the information in a separate clause.

Phil Hope: The clause replaces the existing provisions for the holding of inquiries under section 33 of the Fire Services Act 1947. The Secretary of State
 will be able to establish an inquiry into the performance of a fire and rescue authority in respect of any of its functions, or in respect of the circumstances leading to, or the handling of, a particular incident in relation to which it has functions under the Bill. I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that that is right.
 A technical point was made about the position of clause 54 in relation to clause 26—of course, inquiries are mentioned elsewhere in the Bill. The structure was chosen because parliamentary counsel suggested that we do not want to make this a clumsy Bill. If we were to accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, we would have to repeat the text every time an inquiry was mentioned. Placing the reference in one place and referring to it as we have makes the Bill more robust, clearer and more transparent. That was parliamentary counsel's intention when drafting the Bill. I hope that, with that explanation, the Committee will be happy to support the clause. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Inspectors

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: Dealing with the inspectorate, the clause re-enacts the provisions of the 1947 Act, but goes further in providing that a person appointed under the 1947 Act will continue in office under the current provisions. What the clause does not tell us—the explanatory notes are also entirely silent—is the Government's intentions for the inspectorate.
 If I may be blunt, during the course of the dispute there was quite a bit of rumbling in the fire authority community about the role of the inspectorate and the way in which the inspectorate collectively contributed to progress during the dispute. There was a belief among the fire authorities that there was a degree of sympathy in the ODPM for the view that the inspectorate's contribution was not at all times entirely helpful, and there was an expectation that, as part of the process of modernisation and reform, there might be substantial changes to the way in which the inspectorate operates and the role that it plays. Nothing in the Bill precludes that. It is perfectly possible that inspectors will go on being appointed by Her Majesty, as they have always been, and that assistant inspectors and other officers will be appointed by the Secretary of State, but that they will perform a quite different role. 
 It would be wrong of us to skip though the clause apparently confirming the status quo when, in fact, the Government might have in mind a fairly significant change in the role that the inspectorate plays. Rather than nod the clause through, I wanted to give the Under-Secretary an opportunity to explain to the Committee the role that he envisages the inspectorate having. 
 Given the role of the Audit Commission, and the fact that the proposals for comprehensive performance 
 assessment will apply to fire and rescue authorities—the best value regime—will there be some duplication? If the fire service inspectorate is to continue to inspect, why do we need the more generic local government inspection and performance assessment mechanism as well? It would help the Committee if the Under-Secretary explained not only what is in the Bill, because that is clearly understood and not contentious, but what lies behind it and how the inspectorate will operate in the future.

Phil Hope: The clause re-enacts section 24 of the 1947 Act, as the hon. Gentleman said. It gives powers to appoint inspectors and assistant inspectors to obtain information about the way in which authorities are discharging their fire and rescue functions and about technical matters relating to the service. It provides that those appointed under the 1947 Act continue to be inspectors.
 Let me clarify our intentions about the role of the inspectorate and its relationship with the Audit Commission. The hon. Gentleman raised two good points in those respects. The inspectorate provides a valued source of technical and professional advice to the Government, which is vital to maintain as we modernise the fire and rescue service. The White Paper ''Our Fire and Rescue Service'' made it clear that the work of the inspectorate would be refocused and redirected to support the process of quality assurance and service improvement. It would provide professional advice to Government on good practice, operational and technical issues, and bringing on future leaders of the fire service. It would also support the Audit Commission in its new inspection function. 
 The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the Audit Commission is to implement a performance assessment of fire and rescue authorities as a key tool in support of modernisation. That work will subsume the traditional inspection of brigades that accounted for about 25 per cent. of the inspectorate's business. It is expected that the commission will wish to draw on the inspectorate's professional expertise. The remaining business of the inspectorate, especially the purpose for which its inspectors are appointed—to obtain information—will continue to be important. The skill will be in interpreting the information, drawing conclusions and making recommendations, rather than in obtaining it per se. 
 The change in focus will result in a smaller and more efficient inspectorate with a different set of skills, as envisaged in the independent review of the fire service. Though the change in tasks and focus makes it difficult to compare the situations before and after change, the transfer to the Audit Commission will result in a reduction in staffing levels. In future, the smaller team will provide independent advice and guidance on professional, operational and technical matters and support the modernisation of the fire and rescue service.

Philip Hammond: Will that smaller team be based in the ODPM?

Phil Hope: Yes. It is, of course, an independent inspectorate, appointed by Her Majesty's commission, and its status will remain as it is now. I hope that, with those points of clarification and explanation, hon. Members will support clause 27.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that explanation. I take it that he is telling the Committee that some employees of the inspectorate are likely to become employees of the Audit Commission, thus shrinking the inspectorate. Can he give us some indication of the numbers involved in the inspectorate and the intended reduction in staffing of the residual inspectorate that will be lodged in, but not part of, the ODPM? Can the hon. Gentleman also tell us something about cost, because I am concerned about the cost implications of duplication of function. I do not imagine that the same number of people will simply transfer from the fire service inspectorate to the Audit Commission. To be honest, I am surprised that only 25 per cent. of the work load of the fire service inspectorate is made up of inspecting fire authorities. One might think that inspecting would be rather more than a quarter of an inspectorate's work load, but perhaps that is a rather old-fashioned view on my part. To set the matter in context, perhaps he could tell us the overall cost of the fire service inspectorate.
 I do not want to draw parallels with the Minister of State's negotiations on council tax, which are going on in parallel with the Committee's deliberations, but I emphasise that we must consider the absolute values involved and not just percentages and changes. If the fire service inspectorate budget is small, the questions that I am asking are of less significance than if it is large.

Phil Hope: I am glad that we are not going to drift into discussions of the hon. Gentleman's district council's council tax increase, which at 17.5 per cent. is wholly unacceptable given the level of grant that we have given that council. [Interruption.] I do not want to stray into that, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I am happy to accept the intervention.
Mr. Hammond rose—

Nicholas Winterton: Order. I hope that the Opposition spokesman is not going to stray down the path of council tax increases.

Philip Hammond: I was merely going to question the Under-Secretary's definitions of terms by asking him whether he thinks that 1.7 per cent. is a large increase.

Phil Hope: I am very wary that if I stray into the debate that the hon. Gentleman would like to take me into, you will rule me out of order, Sir Nicholas. I will endeavour not to berate Runnymede again.
 I hope that I have explained about avoiding duplication in the roles of the inspectorate and the Audit Commission. I regret that I cannot provide the hon. Gentleman with the details of the costs of the inspectorate or the other details he asked for, but they are a matter of public record, so I can send him those details after the sitting. The changing role of the inspectorate and the developing role of the Audit Commission are both sensitive matters. It is important 
 to get them right and it would be wrong of us to rush. We must take into account the views of both the inspectorate and the Audit Commission. 
 The hon. Gentleman suggested a straightforward transfer, but the way in which the inspectorate will change its role and size and the way in which the Audit Commission will develop its role and functions will be a matter for more negotiation than would be found in his approach. For example, we are considering secondments and other such restructuring, rather than the simple transfer that he suggests. We want the Audit Commission to carry out the performance inspection role well, drawing upon a range of expertise, some of which is located with the inspectorate. We want the inspectorate in its refocused role to carry out that function with much greater efficiency and effectiveness, so that we have the independent advice that we need when formulating policy and making decisions. 
 Although I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman the details he requires now, I shall be happy to send him details of the current overall cost of the inspectorate. I will not be able to tell him the future cost, which will be discussed in the coming months. I hope that I have made clear our intentions regarding the roles of the inspectorate and the Audit Commission. A process of transition must be undertaken, but we are mindful of the concerns that he has voiced, and we have responded positively in the Bill to allay them. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Equipment, facilities, services and organisations

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in
clause 28, page 12, line 15, leave out from 'considers' to end of line 17 and insert 
 'necessary for the protection of public safety'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 184, in 
clause 28, page 12, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
 Amendment No. 103, in 
clause 28, page 12, line 19, leave out from 'considers' to end of line 21 and insert 
 'necessary for the protection of public safety and the effective discharge of functions conferred on fire and rescue authorities under section 9.'.
 Amendment No. 185, in 
clause 28, page 12, line 25, leave out subsection (3)(b).
 Amendment No. 186, in 
clause 28, page 12, line 30, leave out subsection (4)(b).

Philip Hammond: The clause allows the Secretary of State to provide equipment and services to fire authorities, to require their use and to require them to pay for their use. One wonders whether a referral to the fair competition authorities might arise out of the activities of the ODPM.

Nick Raynsford: The charity commissioners might be more appropriate.

Philip Hammond: Well, that is a very interesting observation and it should not necessarily be taken as a light-hearted comment. One question to explore is the basis upon which the ODPM will charge for those services: either it will be purely cost recovery, or something more will be involved. The provisions have the potential to erode the autonomy of the fire and rescue authorities. The 1947 Act does not require fire authorities to use equipment; the Secretary of State can act as the central procurement agent, but there are no powers to require authorities to use and pay for such equipment.
 Our debate will give the Under-Secretary the opportunity to reassure us that use of the powers in the clause will not result in disaster. As is often the case, the powers are drafted extremely widely. Our job is to consider what is in the Bill. It is interesting to hear Ministers say that it does not do this, or it does not erode autonomy, but in a lucid moment the Under-Secretary might agree that it is capable of extreme erosion of the autonomy of the fire and rescue services—[Interruption.] Well, it is capable of that. His job this morning is to reassure us that he has no intention of using it in that way, and I hope that he will be able to do so. 
 I am sure that the Under-Secretary will refer to resilience—much of our debate has been conducted in those terms. He will tell us that expensive equipment may need to be bought but that it is likely to be used very rarely or, if we are lucky, never. I do not disagree with the concept of central procurement, holding and maintenance of such equipment. The hon. Gentleman indicated that not only the capital cost, but the cost of maintaining and running the equipment for dealing with such new risks is likely to be financed by the ODPM. Concerns about charging do not arise in relation to such equipment. To some extent, I accept the Minister of State's comments about the charity commissioners. The ODPM will procure equipment, make it available and not recover its cost. 
 Concern arises when we come to the provisions in the clause that allow the Secretary of State to charge for the use of the equipment that he provides. The Under-Secretary might tell us that he has no intention of providing any equipment for which a charge will be made. I shall return to the details of that—I suspect that we shall find that we are talking about control rooms and radio equipment more than anything else. The Under-Secretary must accept that we are considering a clause that makes it possible for the Secretary of State to own the entire fleet of fire appliances, for example, and to require fire authorities to use his fire appliances at a charge determined by him. That is possible under the Bill, so we need to know just how far the Secretary of State intends to go in using his powers to become, in effect, the provider of equipment and services for all the nominally independent fire and rescue services throughout the country. 
 Amendment No. 102 is designed to focus the Secretary of State's mind on his stated public safety agenda. The clause constrains him to central procurement and provision of equipment only when that is in the interest of 
''promoting . . . economy, efficiency and effectiveness''.
 The amendment would substitute a reference to public safety. That would cover the circumstances in which the Secretary of State needs to provide equipment to deal with the threat of an unconventional terrorist attack, for example, because it would clearly be in the interest of public safety to have such equipment purchased and made available. It is not obvious to me that the provision of routine fire appliances, purchased by the Secretary of State and made available to authorities who are required to use them, is in the interest of public safety. The Secretary of State may think that it is in the interest of economy, efficiency and effectiveness for him to decide everything, but that is a matter of judgment. 
 We now come to the nub of whether the service is to be a local service, or a nationally or regionally dictated one. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give careful consideration to the suggestion that the test for the Secretary of State entering into such a scheme should be that it promotes public safety, rather than just economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The power that the Secretary of State will have under the clause is a major intervention in the autonomy of authorities. It can be justified on the grounds of public safety, but it is the authority's council tax payers, not the Secretary of State, who should be driving the agenda of efficiency and effectiveness. We are talking about saving money rather than saving lives. 
 It would be different if the Secretary of State did not have the power to require authorities to use the equipment and require them to pay for it, presumably at charges that he will set. If the provisions simply replicate the 1947 Act powers allowing the Secretary of State to procure equipment using his aggregating capability to give economies of scale, and then to offer that equipment to fire authorities that want to take advantage of his purchasing power, that would be absolutely unexceptional. However, we have to consider the at least theoretical scenario of the Secretary of State in one of his more Delboy-ish moments going out and buying a job lot of equipment that he finds no one wants, which he requires local authorities to use. 
Phil Hope indicated dissent.

Philip Hammond: The Under-Secretary shakes his head, but he will be aware that fire and rescue authorities have different requirements in relation to fire appliances, for example. That has been the subject of some discussion. The Secretary of State might think that he has the perfect specification for a fire appliance and might choose to impose a uniform specification for equipment by central purchasing and requiring the use of centrally purchased equipment by fire authorities. If that is intended—I hope it is not—we need to know that. The Committee will take a very
 different view of proposals by the Secretary of State to purchase equipment, of which he will bear the cost, for use in abnormal and exceptional circumstances. That is quite different from any intention to go into the routine procurement business in order to impose uniformity in all fire services. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to those comments.
 Amendment No. 103 repeats the same intentions in relation to subsection (2) of the clause, substituting reference to public safety and giving symmetry with clause 29, which specifically allows the exercise of powers only in the interests of public safety. Amendment No. 103 adds another ground on which the Secretary of State can act: the effective discharge of the functions conferred on an authority under clause 9. The Secretary of State will confer functions under the clause in relation to dealing with the anti-terrorist response. It will give Ministers an opportunity to confirm that organisations will be established—subsection (2) allows the establishment and maintenance of organisations—and forced upon fire and rescue authorities only where that is in the interests of public safety, or where they are related to the response to unconventional threats. In other words, it will give Ministers the opportunity to reinforce the general tone that the more extreme powers would give. By extreme, I mean simply that they are powers that could erode the local autonomy of fire and rescue authorities. If the Minister is able to confirm that the powers will be used only in respect of equipment for dealing with non-conventional risks and threats and that organisations will be established and maintained only to deal with that area, in which we all accept that central Government has a legitimate and key role, the Committee would be much more relaxed about this part of the clause. 
 The Liberal Democrats' amendment No. 184, which is the substantive amendment in their group, takes a different approach. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) would retain without any qualification the powers under subsection (1) to provide and maintain equipment, but would remove altogether the powers under subsection (2) to establish organisations. I am not sure what the intention is, so I shall not comment further on those amendments until we have heard from the hon. Gentleman. 
 I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept the spirit in which amendments Nos. 102 and 103 were tabled. I hope and half expect that I will be reassured by what he has to tell the Committee.

Richard Younger-Ross: On the question of our amendments leaving the other parts of the clause unamended, I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman. Having seen his amendments, we were happy to listen to his comments about them and then decide whether we would support them. From what he has said, I am happy to support his amendments. His points are extremely valid.
 I am concerned that the Secretary of State is taking on a vast number of powers in the clause. It is almost as if he will sit on his own Tracy Island and set up his own British international rescue organisation with his 
 own equipment. The clause would not actually preclude that: he can buy what equipment he wants, from what organisation he wants, and force the authorities to use his organisation or some other organisation that he sets up and equips to undertake a task discussed in another part of the Bill. If the powers were clearly related to resilience, we would be far happier, but they are not. One reason for supporting the Conservative amendment is that it ties the measure into clause 9, which is particularly important. 
 This is almost a Henry VIII clause. The Secretary of State is giving himself the ability to do whatever he likes, whenever he likes, in establishing an organisation. It is extremely bad practice to allow a Secretary of State such wide powers. The Under-Secretary must say clearly what organisations he thinks would be established and when and why they would be established. If he has an understanding of what the organisations are, why are they not referred to in the Bill? Why does the Bill give the Secretary of State such broad scope? He could have powers in respect of resilience in other Bills and other places.

Philip Hammond: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that if the Secretary of State has in mind, for example, the creation of a separate organisation to run the radiocommunications system for the fire service and to operate control rooms, that would be a further removal of management responsibilities and powers from individual fire and rescue authorities, and would likely lead still more quickly to the demise of independent fire and rescue authorities?

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. It is quite feasible that the Secretary of State will seek to establish an organisation for the running and maintenance of radio equipment. As the hon. Gentleman said, that would remove from fire and rescue authorities some of the authority that they presently have. That would take power away from the grass roots. The Under-Secretary keeps talking about locality and about giving power back to localities, but in the clause he gives the Secretary of State powers to take that power away.
 The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred to the 1947 Act and to the ability to procure equipment that is then available to the authorities. That is an exceedingly good thing. The fire authorities have told me on several occasions that they would welcome its being done more often. They particularly mentioned uniform—[Interruption.]

Nicholas Winterton: Order. If the Under-Secretary is intervening, he should rise to his feet.

Phil Hope: No, I am not intervening. Sorry, Sir Nicholas.

Richard Younger-Ross: The authorities have mentioned clothing to me. With women now coming into the service, some authorities have difficulty in purchasing clothing suitable for female firefighters at a reasonable cost. Therefore, the ministerial use of procurement would be welcome, but not this broad power that the Minister is giving himself. Perhaps the
 Under-Secretary will enlighten us as to which organisations he intends to establish.

Phil Hope: First, let me restate the effect of the amendments. Amendment No. 102 would allow the Secretary of State to provide only such equipment, facilities and services as are necessary for the protection of public safety.
 Amendment No. 184 would remove the Secretary of State's ability to establish or maintain an organisation that could promote the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of fire and rescue authorities. Amendment No. 103 would allow the Secretary of State to establish or maintain such an organisation only where necessary for the protection of public safety and the effective discharge of the new duties under clause 9. Amendment No. 185 would prevent fire and rescue authorities from being charged for any equipment, facilities or services provided by such an organisation. 
 Lastly, amendment No. 186 would prevent the Secretary of State from requiring a fire and rescue authority to use specified services.

Philip Hammond: Just to set the record straight, I think that the Under-Secretary slightly misrepresented amendment No. 185. It is not for me to defend Liberal Democrat amendments, but my understanding is that it is simply consequential on amendment No. 184. It removes the power to charge for services simply because that is a necessary corollary of removing the power to provide services.

Phil Hope: Yes, and when we come to amendment No. 104 in the next group we shall consider other issues relating to charging that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise. However, I want to respond to the points made so far about charging.
 Unlike many of the other clauses that we have discussed, the clause is not about the way in which the fire and rescue service discharges its functions, but it ensures that the Secretary of State can provide the tools to enable the service to carry out its job effectively. Therefore, it is not appropriate to specify public safety as a requirement. The need to ensure that the service was properly equipped led us to implement the new dimension programme, which provides fire and rescue authorities with equipment such as incident response units. That will enable them to ensure public safety by carrying out mass decontamination in the event of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack. 
 However, we must take into account the overall economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the fire and rescue service, particularly as that has an impact on local council tax payers. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge oppose measures to promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness at a time when his Front-Bench colleagues are publishing various targets for the vast amount of savings they intend to make by imposing swingeing cuts of some £15 billion on the civil service. The two arguments appear to be in conflict.

Philip Hammond: I may have missed something, but perhaps the Under-Secretary can explain which bits of
 the civil service will be cut as a result of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness that would be secured through these measures.

Phil Hope: I am simply intrigued in general terms. The Government are taking measures to ensure that there is economy, efficiency and effectiveness; those on the Conservative Front Bench claim that vast savings can be made, but do not support any measures that might achieve them.
 The hon. Gentleman will know that the Bain review concluded that procurement was an area where significant improvements could be achieved if authorities pooled requirements and expertise. The other recommendations included the amalgamation of control rooms, outsourcing or collaboration over vehicle maintenance and rationalisation of management and support costs. The review suggested that savings of about £42 million over three years could be achieved. The provisions are not an erosion of the autonomy of fire and rescue services; they are about good practice and common sense. 
 The current procurement of equipment and services specific to the service is often inefficient owing to the small scale on which they are carried out. Fire and rescue authorities can collaborate to develop standard specifications, reduce specialist administration costs and place bulk orders. That potential has been significantly underexploited despite efforts over the past decade to achieve improvements, and it has led to important equipment such as breathing apparatus not being standardised across the service. As well as the cost implications, there are problems of interoperability, so it is no longer acceptable to continue in that vein. 
 One option is to establish a single organisation responsible for providing fire and rescue service-specific equipment and services. We are working with the service and the Local Government Association to establish what that would involve and how best it could be done. 
 I do not wish to invoke the hon. Gentleman's regional paranoia again, but we are planning to rationalise existing control rooms to create regional control rooms, which is the appropriate level for reasons of governance, resilience, intra-service working, and economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Without establishing a new organisation we could not deliver that commitment, because it involves more than the simple provision of equipment. Again, this is not a conspiracy; it is common sense. 
 I can give some reassurance to the hon. Member for Teignbridge by saying that we do not intend to procure centrally every item of equipment required by the fire and rescue service. Procurement of goods and services that are not specific to the service will be local or, to ensure economies of scale through bulk ordering and reducing bureaucracy, regional. We are supporting the LGA in establishing regional centres of excellence in procurement to improve practices. Yesterday at Eland House I announced the local authorities that would act as host centres for the 
 regional centres of excellence, which will promote better procurement in local government throughout the country. 
 Some things are better procured on a national basis or to a common standard and specification. They include the new dimension search and rescue vehicles and the new nationwide radio system known as Firelink. National procurement of the system will increase resilience and interoperability within the service and with other emergency services. Similarly, the provision of a standard call handling and mobilisation system for the regional control rooms will also deliver benefits. 
 As I have already mentioned, it is important for interoperability and firefighter safety to ensure equipment such as breathing apparatus is standardised. It will ensure that every firefighter is trained to use the same equipment and carry out their job safely and effectively no matter where they are asked to go. Without interoperability it would be difficult for them to participate in reinforcement schemes or operate across boundaries in emergencies. We must require the use of such equipment when the Government have purchased it because we must ensure resilience and interoperability.

Philip Hammond: The Under-Secretary has jumped from issue to issue. Will he acknowledge the distinction between interoperability, which concerns public safety, and saving money by procurement through a single route—of uniforms, for example? Can he not see that those are different orders of activity? He makes a case that is difficult to attack in terms of interoperability for reasons of public safety and the health and safety of firefighters, but it is a different and more questionable case when the only issue is the apparent, or supposed, economies.

Phil Hope: I simply cannot agree with the point that is being made. As far as I am concerned, interoperability—the ability to purchase and standardise equipment such as breathing apparatus—is both effective and efficient. We should take—as we are taking—the ability to work with the service and the LGA to create an organisation that will be able to procure centrally. That will both provide the equipment needed for safety and interoperability, and be a more efficient use of the fire and rescue resources available.
 As for charging, the Government have no plans to charge. However, if we are making assets available for new dimension use, which could also be used for other purposes, it may be necessary to charge in those circumstances.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. It appears to me that that matter may be the subject of amendment No. 104. If the Under-Secretary continues, I shall be tough about the time that I feel amendment No. 104 should be given.

Phil Hope: I take your guidance, Sir Nicholas. I want to address the points about charging, but if we are to do so under amendment No. 104, I will leave my remarks until we get to it. I do not want to leave the fears of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge unresolved.
 It is our view that a great deal can be done, through both regional and national procurement, to ensure that there is greater efficiency, effectiveness and economy in the fire and rescue service. The service has a great deal of expertise concerning the equipment necessary to carry out its job effectively, and, of course, it will be directly involved at an early stage of any procurement exercise. That has already been the case with the new dimension programme and the Firelink radio communications system project. It will be the case with the control room project as well. 
 I hope that now that I have explained why we wish to do this, why the amendments are unnecessary and why it is important that we support the Secretary of State's ability to work with the fire and rescue service to procure specific fire and rescue equipment and services, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Philip Hammond: I will take it as read that the Under-Secretary will deal with the charging issues when we come to that debate, so I will not refer to that subject again now.
 I find it somewhat surprising that the Under-Secretary is not prepared to make the distinction between public safety and effectiveness and efficiency, although I accept that the amendment may be overly simplistic. However, there is an important point. When the Under-Secretary talks about procuring equipment for new dimension work, nobody can disagree with his intention. When he talks about standardising breathing apparatus so that firefighters from one authority can reinforce those from another at a scene outside their area and be familiar with back-up equipment that may be in use there, nobody can disagree with his logic. 
 However, whether an organisation promoted by central Government is the best way to deliver that solution may be a different question. When we talk about economy in procurement, I have much graver concerns about whether the Government are going down the right route. Let us be blunt: the track record of Government procurement is not a noble one. If one talks to people in the private sector who are focused on Government procurement programmes—anything to do with IT in any of its forms is the usual first example, but it goes beyond that—one finds that historically, central Government has not been a great procurer. That is not a party political point. 
 Frankly, saying, ''Don't worry about local procurement, chaps. Here is the man from the ODPM, who will show you how to do it'', does not cut any ice with many in local government who feel that they have better procurement practices than central Government, or many in the private sector who think that their procurement practices go some way further in delivering the goods than even local government practices. I shall not bore the Committee by trying off the top of my head to list the catalogue of disasters, but billions of pounds have been written off since this Government came to power. This is not a party political point—it has happened before—but in this case billions have been written off in abandoned 
 procurement projects, particularly IT projects, in the past seven years. 
 I am very concerned about the Firelink project, for example, and the idea that one system will be rolled out across the whole country. That is great if the one system happens to be the right one, but it is like choosing a rifle. If one chooses the wrong rifle, rolls it out and equips the entire Army with it but then finds that it does not work in the sand, one is in serious trouble. 
 Worse than that, once the base of competitive suppliers of equipment or services has been eroded by picking one champion, as has been done in defence procurement, we become extremely vulnerable to the capabilities of that single champion. Instead of a universe of competing suppliers, each trying to make their product or service that much more attractive, economical and efficient for the user, one is left, some way down the line, without competitive pressure in the marketplace.

Hugo Swire: Unsurprisingly, perhaps, I totally agree with my hon. Friend's comments, but there is a further point about flexibility. The Devon fire and rescue service is looking at ways of financing future acquisition of extended ladders for vehicles. It might do that through some financing package, which would suit its specific requirements, rather than buying them from some central body or fund. Perhaps the measure is intended to reduce the flexibility of independent fire services.

Philip Hammond: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Under-Secretary implied during his speech that any resistance to central procurement was an abdication of our responsibility to ensure economy in public spending. Nothing could be further from the truth. The debate is about from where one believes the pressure for economy and efficiency in the delivery of local services should come. I believe that it should come from council tax payers.
 There may be another debate to be had about the effectiveness of local government democratic institutions in holding local government accountable for the economy with which it spends council tax payers' money, but, frankly, having seen the Government in action, I have little faith in central Government as the means of delivering the best efficiency and economy for council tax payers. That is partly because of the track record of Government procurement and partly because I am not convinced by central Government's approach, which is to do things on a grand scale. That might superficially yield some savings, but, looking at the system overall, and given the additional tiers of bureaucracy and additional elements of reporting and lines of communication involved, I do not believe that it actually produces the savings that are sometimes suggested.

Jim Knight: I want to pick up on what the hon. Gentleman said about defence. As a former member of the Defence Committee, I would say that competition for procurement is very strong, but in a globalised framework. There are issues about
 protecting British industry and ensuring that it remains competitive, but there is globalisation.
 Yesterday, I visited Land Registry, a Government agency, which has just produced an IT project, on time and on budget, to computerise the registration of all property in the UK. It can be done, and it can be contrasted with local government housing benefit, where there were problems in some areas regarding the contracting out of the relevant IT to the private sector. That created all sorts of problems for council tax payers. It is not quite as simple a picture as the hon. Gentleman would like to paint.

Philip Hammond: I hope that I did not paint too simple a picture. The record speaks for itself. The very fact that the Land Registry project is being hailed as a triumph points, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge, to the fact that the great majority of central Government IT projects have not come in on time and on budget. Indeed, off the top of my head I cannot think of another one. Some eventually come in hugely over budget and never perform with the benefits and results that were anticipated. Some are abandoned after hundreds of millions of pounds, or in one recent case, more than £1 billion, have been invested. We must tread extremely warily.
 If I wanted to be aggressive about this I would ask the Minister what on earth makes him think he is qualified to determine the best equipment to be installed nationally for the fire service's radio system. Why do Ministers believe that they have the answer to these very complicated problems? Does the Minister not recognise the danger that standardising on a single system, UK-wide, results in a degree of vulnerability? 
 Let me fast forward a little. Let us assume that, of the various technologies being tendered for the Firelink system, the Tetra proposal is accepted and installed across the country. You will be aware, Sir Nicholas, that many people have very grave concerns about the health implications of the microwave radiation from the Tetra mast. I make no comment about that at all, because I do not know enough about it, but I do know that there is a body of concern. Supposing that, some way down the line, irrefutable medical evidence were to become available, and that the system that had been selected had serious adverse health consequences. We would be left with one system, installed by ODPM diktat across all fire authorities in the country, and we would be in an impossible situation. I am wary of single-source procuring and single-technology solutions, unless we are talking about technologies that are so well established that they hardly any longer qualify for the term ''technology''.

Jim Knight: Is not the issue in this procurement the importance, for civil contingency, of producing something that is fully interoperable between the blue light services and the armed forces? Is it not more to the point that if there were a disaster, and the blue light services and armed forces responding to it were unable to communicate properly, the Government would be asked why they had not taken
 action to procure something that would allow them to talk to each other?

Philip Hammond: I do not claim to be sufficiently up to speed on the technology as to know whether it is necessary to procure a single system, rather than to have a standard for interoperability between separately procured systems—perhaps the hon. Gentleman is. I would be surprised if the only way to ensure interoperability was to have a single system, centrally procured by the ODPM, and set up, as now appears to be the Minister's intention, by an independent agency sponsored by central Government. There are considerable concerns about that.
 I acknowledge that the amendments, in one sense, do not go far enough to address the concerns that we are talking about and, in another sense, may slightly miss their target. The point of tabling them was to have this debate. This is an issue to which we will want to return, to look a little more carefully at how this procurement is to be done. The Minister is probably not going to speak again, but I anticipate that, if he did, he would tell us that although the ODPM or the Secretary of State will nominally procure this equipment, it will be done by a committee of the great and the good in the fire and rescue service world. I hope that he will tell us that, and that the Deputy Prime Minister will not, on a wet Tuesday evening, decide which is the best system to procure. Obviously, there will be a wider consultation basis, but that cannot deal with a situation in which there are genuine differences of view between autonomous bodies answerable to their local taxpayers about the right way to go. 
 As I said earlier, when key issues of overriding public safety are involved, I understand the argument for the Secretary of State making the hard decision on which of the two or three competing systems should be imposed. However, when the issue is not public safety but economy of procurement, it is much more questionable whether the Secretary of State should have or use that power.

Richard Younger-Ross: We agree with virtually every word said by the Minister, but, unfortunately, what he said is not in the Bill. The powers that it grants far exceed what he said, and I and my party cannot accept that. The Secretary of State could, without referring back to the House, set up organisations to run a radio system or whatever other system he wants. To my mind, that is wrong.
 I do not have quite as many fears as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge on standardisation, although I understand his points. There are times when one contractor is necessary because of copyright that may be part of the system and because standardisation is necessary to achieve interoperability. However, the ability to standardise exists for a whole range of equipment, despite the fact that that is unnecessary; it is necessary only to set regulation to say what the standard should be—whether the screw goes one way or the other. It is necessary only to define that; the authorities can then be allowed to decide what screws to buy rather than 
 being given the choice about what direction they should turn in. 
 I see the possibility in the clause for mass purchasing of some equipment, but central Government do not have a good record on mass purchasing. Fire service surplus stores could spring up all over the country, much as we used to have Army surplus stores, to get rid of equipment that was purchased but cannot be used because too much was bought. I am not being serious, but I want to make the point that equipment and money must not be wasted because central Government are not particularly good at purchasing. 
 I cannot accept the provision, having heard what the Minister said, and I want to press amendments Nos. 184, 185 and 186.

Philip Hammond: I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 102.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nicholas Winterton: On balance, I am prepared to allow a Division on amendment No. 184, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
 Amendment proposed: No. 184, in 
clause 28, page 12, line 18, leave out subsection (2).—[Richard Younger-Ross.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Nicholas Winterton: When we started I was confident that we would reach clause 30, at least, by the end of this sitting. I seek to help the Committee; I take no part in the debate, but I suggest that we try to make rather faster progress.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in
clause 28, page 12, line 22, after 'imposed', insert 'by order'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 105, in 
clause 28, page 12, line 25, at end insert 'under subsection (2)'.

Philip Hammond: I think that I can reassure you, Sir Nicholas. When multiple groups of amendments are tabled to one clause, some of the wider issues tend to be debated under the first group, so I am sure that we will be able to make much more rapid progress.
 Amendment No. 104 deals with the Secretary of State's power to charge. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will be able to require authorities to use equipment, facilities and services provided by him or by an organisation created and maintained by him. He 
 will be able to require authorities to pay for the use of that equipment. We have already heard from the Under-Secretary that it is unlikely that charges will routinely be made when the equipment is for resilience purposes—the unconventional part of the fire and rescue authority's functions. We are happy with that. The Committee should consider not that, but other equipment and services, including the overall radio and control room facilities that might be provided by the Secretary of State or an organisation that he has created. 
 The purpose of amendment No. 104 is to flush out some of the Deputy Prime Minister's intentions on charging. Other than equipment for use in new dimension work, the key areas in which the Under-Secretary has confirmed that the Government intend to provide equipment, facilities and services centrally, either directly or through an organisation established by them, are the communications network and control room equipment. The latter area probably largely overlaps with the former. 
 I have not understood from what has been said so far whether it is intended to charge fire authorities for the use of communications equipment supplied under the arrangements. I imagine that, although such equipment will have a new dimension role, it will also be used routinely in dealing with calls about cats stuck in trees, which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to relate to the highest questions of public safety. I imagine that the ODPM intends to charge fire and rescue authorities for the use of those equipment services. 
 Several questions arise from that. How will charges be set? Will they be set on a cost-recovery basis, as fire and rescue authorities will be limited to doing when charging others for services under clause 19? What about the overheads of the organisations created? We are all aware of the tendency of central Government organisations to carry a large bureaucratic overhead. We are also all aware of the history of central Government technology procurement programmes running significantly over budget. The equipment that we are discussing is not strictly IT, but I guess that the radio system will have a large IT element to it. 
 If there is to be a charging regime based on full-cost recovery, I fear that we shall have one person in command of the procurement process in the driving seat—the Secretary of State who has said, ''Don't worry, chaps, I can do it for you better and cheaper''—recovering whatever it costs him from the authorities that are not invited but required to use it. That is a serious concern, and it raises issues about the basis of calculation of cost recovery—the ODPM overhead involved. I would be very interested in what the Under-Secretary can tell us about the intended charging regime. Fire authorities will have to think about that during their own budgeting processes. 
 Amendment No. 105 is probing in nature. It would insert at the end of subsection (3)(b) the words ''under subsection (2)''. Perhaps I was naive, but on first reading the Bill I assumed that organisations established or maintained by the Secretary of State for which charges may be imposed on fire authorities under subsection (3)(b) would in every case be those 
 established under subsection (2). However, the Bill does not say that. If it is the Under-Secretary's intention that the scope of subsection (3)(b) is limited to organisations established and maintained under subsection (2), let that be included in the Bill. If the Under-Secretary does not want that included in the Bill because he has other organisations in mind— 
Phil Hope indicated dissent.

Philip Hammond: The Under-Secretary shakes his head, but other organisations are already established, such as the Fire Service College. I wonder whether he intends that charges would be levied under subsection (3)(b) in respect of organisations other than those established under subsection (2). Perhaps he would clarify whether that is the case and either accept the amendment or tell us why it is unnecessary.

Phil Hope: Amendment No. 104 would require the Secretary of State to make an order every time he wanted to charge for the use of equipment or services provided. I remember sitting in this Committee Room to debate a statutory instrument and the hon. Gentleman berating me for wasting parliamentary time on bringing people together to discuss the allocation of community fire safety moneys to fire and rescue authorities. I was roundly berated for dragging parliamentarians into the Room to do so. I therefore cannot believe that he wants to drag parliamentarians into a statutory instrument Committee every time we want to charge for the use of equipment or services provided by the Secretary of State. That is the implication of his amendment.

Philip Hammond: If I recall the incident in question, my concern was that the Committee was sitting to consider a grant that amounted in one case to £4,000—considerably less than the cost of the paperwork supporting the Committee. In this case my understanding is—the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that there would be a regime for charging. It would not be a question of a separate order each time a bill was sent to a fire authority; it would be a regime that would determine the basis on which charges were made.

Phil Hope: Under section 22 of the Fire Services Act 1947, the Secretary of State can make equipment available to fire and rescue authorities to purchase. There was never any suggestion that that price should be set by order. To do so would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. To pick up on the hon. Gentleman's point, if the Secretary of State instituted a monthly charge for the provision of a service, a new order would be required every time the charge was varied. That does not seem a very good use of parliamentary time.

Philip Hammond: The Minister refers to the 1947 Act. There is no need to address the problem in that Act because it does not give the Secretary of State the power to require a fire authority to buy from him. The Bill does, which is why we need some scrutiny of the charging process. I entirely dispute the assertion that the amendment would require a separate order every month. If a charging regime required fire authorities to
 pay on the basis of full-cost reimbursement for equipment provided, the matter would be covered and a Committee would not be required to sit every month, as the Under-Secretary suggested.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to disagree on whether his amendment would bureaucratically clutter parliamentary time—were we foolishly to support it.
 We have no intention of charging for any of the equipment that we have committed to providing for resilience purposes, as I think the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged. The Government are funding the procurement of the Firelink radio system and have no intention of charging the fire and rescue service for it. Similarly, we have funded the purchase of new dimension equipment to the tune of £188 million, and authorities will not be expected to bear the cost of its use for new dimension purposes. However, the Secretary of State may need to charge for new services that he provides in future, and the Bill obliges him to consult before doing so. 
 A number of examples have been raised in debate on this clause and previously. I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we do not intend to procure goods and services centrally for the fire and rescue service and then charge for them. He cited the example of fire engines. We have no intention of procuring fire engines for the service and then charging for them. Instead, we are working with the service to improve procurement of specialist equipment and to deliver better value for money and higher standards. We are working with the service, not in opposition to it. 
 I repeat that we do not have any plans to charge, but if assets that we made available for new dimension work were then used for other purposes, we might need to charge in the event of excessive wear and tear on the equipment.

Philip Hammond: I understand the point about equipment, which the Under-Secretary has made before, but will he clarify it in relation to the communications network?

Phil Hope: I was coming to that. I just wanted to emphasise that we shall keep our position under review, but our intention is as I have stated.
 Were we to consider charging for communications equipment, we would have to discuss the matter in depth with the fire and rescue services. We have no plans to charge for the provision of the Firelink system, and we have made a ministerial commitment on that. Therefore, there is no question of full-cost recovery in those circumstances. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks.

Richard Younger-Ross: A moment ago the Under-Secretary used the words ''excessive wear and tear''. Would the charge be based on the cost of the additional excessive wear and tear or would full-cost recovery relate to the purchase of the equipment as well?

Phil Hope: If I may illustrate the point, perhaps we can get beyond it. If a fire and rescue authority uses some new dimension equipment—for example, high-volume pumping equipment—for a non-emergency
 such as pumping out a village pond, it could be charged for that use. As we know from previous discussions, the fire service can charge for the use of such equipment in a non-emergency. I do not want to revisit the charging debate, but I hope that that illustrates that there will be common sense in the system.
 Clearly, scrutiny is a concern in amendment No. 104, but scrutiny is implicit in subsections (4) and (5). Fire and rescue services will be required to use and maintain equipment and there will be an order and a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult. Therefore, the system contains sufficient safeguards to make it unnecessary to lay an order in the House—notwithstanding all the arguments about how bureaucratic it may be. The clause contains the reassurance that there will be proper consultation and that we have no plans to charge for the provision of the communications equipment, so there is no question of full-cost recovery. We want to discuss all the measures in depth with the fire and rescue services to ensure that the regime is sensible and that the charging of equipment makes sense to the Government and the authorities. 
 The intention behind amendment No. 105 is implicit in the clause, in that charges may be imposed in relation to subsection (2). It is therefore not necessary to include such a provision in the Bill.

Philip Hammond: I do not believe that the effect of the amendment is implicit in the clause, but the Under-Secretary has read into the record that that is the way in which the clause will be applied. That was extremely helpful and renders the question of whether the amendment is implicit in the clause somewhat academic. I am grateful to him for that.
 As expected, I am reassured by what the Under-Secretary said. One problem of very broad drafting of Bills is that we have to work to the exasperation of Ministers. We are obliged to look for the most extreme possible use of the very wide powers that Ministers are being given and then, in order to reassure ourselves, use debates in Committees to persuade them to constrain their future use of such powers. I am glad that the Under-Secretary has confirmed that the Government's intention is strictly limited to the acquisition and provision of specialist equipment and that, in the interests of standardisation or procurement efficiency, they will not procure standard equipment such as routine fire appliances for issue to fire authorities. 
 I am also grateful for the confirmation that there is no intention to charge for the communications system. The Under-Secretary has very cunningly worked out how to defuse resistance among fire authorities to their having a communications system imposed on them. I am sure that some of the initial reaction will melt away when they find out that it will cost nothing, because something that is offered for nothing is usually more attractive to the recipient. I am grateful for the clarification given and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 - Directions for public safety purposes

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 107, in
clause 29, page 12, line 37, at end insert— 
 '(1A) An order under subsection (1) may only be made where one or more fire and rescue authorities is or is considered by the Secretary of State to be likely to become, unable to discharge its functions under sections 7, 8 or 9.'.
 Clause 29 re-enacts in slightly different wording a major chunk of the Fire Services Act 2003, not including the most controversial section 1(1)(a)—the sunset clause. The clause gives power to direct 
''the use or disposal of property or facilities''
 of a fire and rescue authority. 
 In general, we agree, as we did during passage of 2003 Act, that it is sensible to have such a power for use in an extreme situation—for example, in a strike or industrial dispute situation—so that we never again see troops struggling to manage with grossly inadequate and, as some would say, even dangerous 50-year-old civil defence fire tenders when perfectly good, ''state of the art'' red fire engines are locked up, apparently under the control of the people who are on strike. It raised the gall of many during the dispute—I believe from comments that I heard that the Deputy Prime Minister was among them—to see red fire engines behind locked doors and firefighters warming themselves on fire authority premises while troops had to make do with draughty Territorial Army drill halls and the like as a base for their operations. It has to be acknowledged that during the dispute some authorities clearly lacked either the political will or the backbone to confront the union over access to equipment and premises. 
 I debated the subject with my own chief fire officer during the dispute to find out what was going on on my patch. As the Under-Secretary will know, the situation is a little more complicated than the knee-jerk reaction of passing motorists to seeing firefighters in possession of publicly owned fire stations while on strike. During the strike, the practical consideration in many areas—in fact, I think, in all areas without exception—was that firefighters turned out for real emergencies. The judgment of the chief fire office in my area was that if firefighters were not allowed to congregate on fire authority premises and, effectively, to keep possession of their equipment, they would not be in a position to turn out. 
 Such matters are easier to discuss in the cool light of day than they were in the heat of the dispute. Then, there was a feeling that the unions were being allowed to gain a propaganda victory by retaining possession of their equipment—I have slipped into the terminology myself; I should have said retaining possession of the fire authority's equipment—and then turning out as heroes if required to effect a rescue or put out a particularly serious fire. 
 Ministers' first duty must be to secure the safety of the public. However galling it is, the Minister must consider carefully whether public safety would be 
 better protected by allowing striking firefighters to retain control of equipment on the basis that they will turn out when it is absolutely necessary. I am slightly nervous that, in the hothouse atmosphere of a dispute, the powers under the clause might be used as a knee-jerk reaction in a way that could damage public safety. 
 One issue that inevitably comes up is that, as the draft framework makes clear, the 19,000 military personnel who were available during the last dispute would almost certainly not be available again, owing to military overstretch, cuts in numbers and even—possibly—privatisation of parts of the defence fire services, denuding it of the specialist skills required. So, the issue in another industrial dispute might not so much be access to red fire engines but who the heck will drive them. 
 I think that the 2003 Act was sabre rattling with a purpose; the dispute had still not been resolved. The outcome of the strike vote was, to some extent, secured by the expression of determination to draw a line under the issue in the form of the 2003 Bill. The Minister of State, however, went to great lengths during debates on that Bill to emphasise the temporary nature of the powers that he was taking. Time considerations mean that I will not reach into my pile of papers and quote the numerous times when he referred to the time limit that the Government accepted on the powers in the 2003 Act. 
 It is technically true that nothing that the Minister of State said during the 2003 debate precluded a re-enactment of precisely the same powers in a new Bill. It is not often that I would spend much of my time defending the position of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but when the Minister sought to reassure him and other Labour Members who rebelled against the Government in the vote on that Bill, he conveyed the impression that the matters subject to the 2003 Act would be reviewed and that new, permanent proposals would be made in the White Paper and this Bill. Nothing that the Minister said would have prepared the reasonable, independent observer for the wholesale re-enactment of those time-limited powers—except for very minor changes in the wording. A question of openness arises about the intention that the Government had. The clause will be accepted by the Committee with only a little probing now, but I suspect that the Government will find that their back Benchers will want to express their sense of betrayal that measures that were said to be time-limited in 2003 have been brought back as permanent legislation. 
 Amendment No. 107 would limit the use of the powers to the circumstances in which Ministers say that they are needed. It provides for the use by the Secretary of State of the powers in the clause when either a fire authority cannot, or he reasonably expects that it will not be able to, discharge its functions under clauses 7, 8 and 9 covering fire, road traffic accidents and other emergencies—typically, a situation such as an industrial dispute or some other paralysis that affects the fire and rescue authority. 
 Including such a provision would allay the fears of those who spoke during the 2003 debate about the possible use of the powers to privatise fire service facilities and to require the disposal of property and the passing of equipment and facilities to other service providers. As the Secretary of State intends to use the clause only in the case of an industrial dispute or similar emergency when a fire authority cannot discharge its functions, I urge the Under-Secretary, regardless of whether he accepts my amendment, to tighten the wording to reassure a sceptical micro-public on his Back Benches that that is the intention—making the wording fit the stated intention. If the Under-Secretary will not accept such a restriction, he will need to tell us when a fire and rescue authority would be discharging, and would be expected to be able to continue to discharge, its statutory functions but it would be considered legitimate to use the powers in the clause. 
 Once again, I emphasise the Opposition's belief that fire and rescue authorities must have the primary responsibility for the discharge of their functions. It is right and proper that the Secretary of State should have the power to intervene when they fail to discharge those functions either because they are incompetent-—that is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill—or because something such as a strike prevents them from doing so. It is also proper that he should be constrained not to interfere in that way if they are discharging their functions fully and effectively. The Bill, with the clause but without the amendment, gives too wide a power of intervention. I look forward to hearing how the Under-Secretary will respond to those concerns.

Phil Hope: I can provide the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but, unfortunately, I cannot accept his amendment.
 The hon. Gentleman is right that the clause was specifically drafted to ensure that in the event of industrial action the Secretary of State could act swiftly to secure assets and facilities—for example, appliances—for those providing emergency fire and rescue cover. Clearly, that is not dealt with under other provisions in the Bill. I echo his point that we are not repeating the measures in the 2003 Act to impose a pay settlement on the fire service. That was the issue of most concern when the Fire Services Bill was considered in Parliament. The power that we are carrying over into this Bill is more restricted than that passed in the 2003 Act because it relates only to public safety. 
 I am pleased to say that negotiations between the employers and the Fire Brigades Union continue to make good progress. We hope that all parties move forward with a fresh start. The reason for the clause is that the Government have a duty to ensure that public safety is foremost in fire service actions. The amendment would undermine the Secretary of State's ability to take action, which is critical to ensuring public safety. 
 The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the requisition of vehicles during a strike when some firefighters turn out in an emergency. We would 
 consider that carefully in the event of a dispute because it is true that some firefighters did turn out in an emergency. As he recognises, however, that might or might not be so in a future dispute, so it is important to have fall-back measures to use sensitively at the time. 
 Amendment No. 107 would make the failure or anticipated failure of a fire and rescue authority to discharge its core operational functions under clauses 7, 8 and 9 the trigger for the powers of intervention. It would create further delay, thereby preventing critical preparatory work were industrial action proposed. It would leave the Secretary of State vulnerable to a legal challenge by a recalcitrant fire and rescue authority that refused to allow its assets and facilities to be used by others. 
 Historically, fire and rescue authorities have argued that their duty to make provision to deal with fires in normal circumstances does not extend to industrial action. They took that view in the most recent dispute. In making failure to discharge an operational function the trigger, there is a real risk that, in the event of fires or road traffic accidents, the Secretary of State's powers to secure assets will be frustrated. 
 I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State intends to use the powers only as a last resort and where absolutely necessary to ensure public safety in the event of industrial action. We expect that, in practice, most if not all authorities would co-operate if their property or facilities were needed to provide emergency cover. 
 Those planning for emergency cover need the assurance that they will be able to obtain equipment at relatively short notice. Those providing cover need to have access to the most appropriate equipment for their own safety and that of the public. The amendment would remove that assurance and create a serious delay in accessing vital equipment, which would result in a reduction in public safety. I understand that we agree on the clause, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond: I do not think that we disagree on very much at all, but the Under-Secretary has made an important point, which I had not appreciated. If I understand him correctly, he presents a technical argument in which the legal view is that failure to deliver the service may not be failure to discharge the functions of a fire and rescue authority. Therefore, the test that I seek to impose might not work because even though no fire cover were provided, the authority could be deemed to be discharging its functions.
 A broader issue is raised, and the Under-Secretary might consider whether the Bill presents a good opportunity to make it crystal clear that there is no ambiguity about the matter. Elsewhere in the Bill reference is made to the Secretary of State dealing with failures by fire and rescue authorities to discharge their functions—at least I had read those provisions in such terms. Perhaps it would be useful at a later stage to think about defining ''discharge of functions'', to make it absolutely clear—for reasons of allowing the intervention of the appropriate Secretary of State for failure to discharge—that a failure to provide a service 
 because of what might be deemed a force majeure event affecting the fire authority is effectively a failure to perform its function. However, I accept what the Under-Secretary says, and I am glad that he acknowledges the complex issues involved. Some very careful decisions would have to be taken before such powers were used in any broad way, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: I have two specific questions for the Under-Secretary. I know that parliamentary drafting is very precise, so there must be a reason for the wording of the 2003 Act, as used in the second line of clause 29(1) of this Bill. The 2003 Act refers to giving ''specific or general directions'', while the Bill refers to giving ''general or specific directions''. I know that that could not be an accidental inversion of words, because parliamentary drafting does not work by accident. Someone has decided since 2003 that it must be ''general or specific'' rather than ''specific or general''.
 Secondly, will the Under-Secretary tell us whom he would expect to consult under subsection (4)? The wording—used repeatedly in this Bill—is entirely unacceptable. It states: 
''the Secretary of State must consult any persons he considers appropriate.''
 Having to consult whoever he thinks he should consult is not much of an onerous task. That does not impose any burden at all, so will the hon. Gentleman tell us who will be consulted?

Phil Hope: I will have to seek clarification on why the wording is the reverse of that in the Fire Services Act. I will write to the hon. Gentleman if I can find an answer.
 On subsection (4), throughout the Bill we have endeavoured to restrain ourselves from listing lots of people and organisations whom we would consult because there will always be some people who are missed off any such list.

Philip Hammond: Owing to the particular circumstances in which the clause would be likely to be invoked, the question is whether the Minister would consult the union carrying out industrial action when he needed to use the powers.

Phil Hope: We would consult all fire and rescue authorities and anyone else whom the Secretary of State thought was appropriate at that time. That may or may not include the union, and it may include other authorities. It is a comprehensive measure, which gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to consult whomever he believes it is important to consult when a decision must be made.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock till this day at half-past Two o'clock.